The myth of the noble profession

Journalism is a much favoured subject in the Central Superior Service (CSS) examination which allows entry of young men and women into the federal services. If one reads the questions set in Journalism papers every year, one comes across a view of the press that is completely divorced from professional realities in the 1990s. The examiner upholds the general myth about Journalism being a noble profession which can only be practised as a mission, not as commerce. This kind of misperception is also current about the medical profession but medical experts are seldom recommended a code of ethics decrying commercialism among doctors. Similarly, the myth that education is a noble, non-commercial sector has not stopped private sector schools from functioning as free market. Somehow capital investment in newspapers and magazines is looked at with suspicion, as if the profit-motive should not be the primary concern of the journalistic profession. While the contemporary practice is decried as materialistic, journalists are asked to look at the pre-1947 Muslim press as an ideal, notwithstanding the lack of professionalism and continuity, and indulgence of personal bias, in it.

Paper-setting standards in the CSS

Paper-1 set for the year 1996, seeks a reporter to be 'well-versed in the Directing Principles of the Constitution, national history, security concepts and the nation's psyche'. Why should reporter be required to be well-versed in the above ideological prescriptions when all that the profession requires from him is objective reporting without injecting personal bias or belief in it? In the same paper the examiner says: 'Our media do not mirror the soul of our nation, have become the prophets of doom, spread cynicism and graft foreign values. Discuss.' This leading question wants the candidate to expatiate on the violations of the 'national ideology' being committed by the press in Pakistan while none of the violations mentioned are clearly defined. What is the soul of the nation? If the soul is Islamic then the charge is not correct because the Pakistani press has a strong religious bias and, for various reasons, doesn't hold to account the practice of religion in the country in the same manner as it does governance. The question is equally unclear about 'the psyche of the nation'? What are the foreign values being 'grafted' by the free press? If these questions have to be adjudicated, who is authorised to do it?

The urge to 'control' the free press

The CSS papers also betray the belief among the paper-setters that in the third world journalism should be 'controlled'. The question in Paper-2 of 1996 says: 'Explain how the mass media in the developing countries regulate themselves to avoid misuse of their freedom?' The inference here is that somehow the media in the advanced countries of the world don't need 'regulation', but in the third world, freedom has to be saved from abuse. Another question set in 1991 says: 'What role of the national mass media do you visualise in a crisis situation?' Here the implication is that during national crises the press must change its principles of disclosure and support the state. For example, if during a 'national' war with India, the Pakistani army violates human rights, should the press remain quiet on it. That this happened in the past was made clear when the true facts about the fall of East Pakistan came to light. In recent times, the silence of a major portion of the Indian press has refrained from disclosing the violations of human rights of the Indian army in Kashmir. Is the national press being asked to follow this example? Has this 'self-control' ever served the nation well? Why can't the press be asked to work on the same principles of disclosure as in peace-time? Is 'self-control' of this kind effective in stopping the spread of 'cynicism' and sense of 'doom'? How serious is the possibility of the national press losing its credibility under this kind of 'self-control'?

A hangover of the emergency laws

Pakistan's press has not been free during most of its history. The country has lived under emergency laws that suspended human rights and curtail the freedom of the press under suspension of this constitutional provision. The 'mass media' the papers refer to are Radio and TV which have remained under state control where 'self-control' actually means presentation of a parallel reality suited to the self-interest of the ruling party. Because of lack of literacy in Pakistan, it is TV and Radio which has the largest 'footprint' of coverage. Yet the free print medium, covering hardly 5 percent of thea population mostly in urban areas, is seen as more threatening because of its disclosures. Why should the CSS examiner be worried about these disclosures when the real mass medium is electronic serving the government under state control? In the days when the print medium too was not free, people had shifted from national Radio to the BBC's Urdu broadcasts. That the bureaucracy continues to believe in the efficacy of 'control' was proved by the imposition of emergency under prime minister Nawaz Sharif. If the government thought that this measure would bring freedom from journalistic disclosure it was mistaken. A beleaguered judiciary, recently chastened by an assault on its freedom, ruled that emergency laws would not apply to human rights. This legal interpretation constituted a break from the past in that the Supreme Court ignored its own jurisprudence and decided to defend the freedom of the press. Why hasn't the CSS examiner in 1996 taken account of this change of attitude in Pakistan? It seems that journalism has completed a significant journey in its evolution without the teacher of Journalism being aware of it. Is it possible that the teacher disapproves of the change and wants the profession to go back to old times?

Code of Ethics as weapon against the press

Although the CPNE Code of Ethics was never really accepted by the gagged press, the teacher seems to regard it as sacrosanct. The Code warned the journalist against writing anything endangering the security of the state, sowing distrust of the armed forces, and criticising countries friendly to The Code clearly emanated from Article 3-A of the Pakistan Penal Code punishing anyone who endangered the ideology of Pakistan and security of the state. After nearly three decades of journalistic practice, after the Code has been proved to be completely infructuous, why is the teacher of Journalism reverting to it? And why should the teacher now insist on asking the loaded questions in 1996 when in the earlier years he was less worried about press freedom. For instance, in Paper-2 of 1993, a question says: 'It is impossible to have a democratic society without complete freedom of the media of mass communication. Discuss.' This question assumes that freedom is required not only in the print medium but also in the electronic one, meaning thereby that as long as the electronic medium is in control of the government there can be no real democracy. Why should paper-setting patterns appear to be retrogressive and completely out of line with the practice of journalism in the country? Unfortunately, the course books recommended by the Punjab University for its MA Journalism (Urdu) faithfully reflect this mythology of journalism.

A profession like other professions

Journalism is usually described as 'noble' and its commercialisation decried despite the fact that all the Western newspapers admired as models are listed on the stock exchange. No one concentrates on the fact that most of the ills of journalism in Pakistan have spread from its not being completely commercial. Most newspapers are private limited enterprises closely run by their owner-editors. Had they been public limited companies listed on the stock exchange, they would be run like business, out of the control of their owners. Once journalism is completely commercial, it would be subject to laws guiding all commerce. Journalism done as 'mission' is without an ethic and therefore irresponsible. If all commercial enterprises are subject to legal codes and unwritten free-market principles, why should Journalism be subjected to restraint through special codes? The only restraint on the print medium is the law against libel and defamation. Disclosures that cannot be backed by evidence can be punished through fines at the court of law. This is the process that keeps journalism in the West in check. If the civil court procedure in Pakistan is faulty, why should Journalism be singled out and subjected to a treatment that is certain to destroy its freedom? Why should the government insist on a Press Council equipped with powers to levy fines and punish offending journalists when the civil courts are functioning in the country? And if the civil courts are corrupt why should it be assumed that members of the Press Council would free of corruption. In fact, tested against the general level of morality, our journalist community is found to be more corrupt. Finally, why should the Federal Public Service Commission blindly continue to allow a certain kind of teachers of Journalism to set its CSS question papers who are offended by press freedom?